Posted on 04/27/2012 6:57:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
April 27, 2012
I deal on a regular daily basis with self-identified conservatives all across America who are addicted to the Republican Party. And when it comes to the impending nomination by their party of the most liberal governor in U.S. history, Mitt Romney, their reactions are overwhelmingly in line with the classic symptoms described below. We can't make them face reality, of course. All we can do is to keep pointing it out to them, in the sincere hope that they will recover in time to help save the country.
-----
From Wikipedia :
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:
The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape.
In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.
This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:
Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.
For example: Troy breaks up with his girlfriend because he is unable to control his anger, and then blames her for everything that ever happened.
Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.
This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.
Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, "it just happened". Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).
This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify with in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Denial at this level can have significant consequences both personally and at a societal level.
Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.
DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender.
Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:
...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.
Many of the Perot voters were new to politics and many were’t regular voters before he came on the scene and wouldn’t have voted at all if he hadn’t. They mostly stayed active and helped the 1994 landslide happen when it became clear that Clinton was pushing leftist policies. It’s one of the reasons that Clinton reversed course in 1995 and usually avoided iedological conflict during the rest of his Presidency.
No, voting for more liberalism in congress results in more liberalism. Voting for more conservatives in congress results in more conservatives. This is what I'm advocating.
By the way, your posts continue to prove the point made by the original article at the top of the thread.
I think ascribing psychological problems to those who disagree with your political strategies shows a weakness of argument.
I believe your actions will not have the result you desire; they will have unintended consequences harmful to the republic. I believe I have described why and would be willing to discuss further on this aspect.
It would be quite lame of me to say you're crazy; and, I think it pointless to deflect a political debate into a psych analysis. It becomes name-calling silliness. Rather than a reasoned analysis of the political process, elections, strategy and methodology.
In general, that's my criticism of third party folks. Most seem unwilling to look at the results of their actions in political consequences. Wisdom requires we take responsibility for the results of our actions, or that we consider them at the very least. We cannot maintain we are doing "good" when the result is, predictably, not good - more harm than if we had not acted at all.
I thank you for the cogent parts of our discussion.
I’m sorry, I’m really not sure I completely understand your reply to me.
Do you mean you will consider and negotiate “furthering the chance of the Obama regime maintaining power”? Is this still on the table for you?
DJ, with all due respect, your hypothetical, Perotless 1992 presidential election map is not based on reality. Exit polls showed that Perot voters preferred Bush over Clinton by about 55%-40%. And many of the Perot voters who preferred Clinton over Bush were kids who probably would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot. Had Perot not been on the ballot (e.g., had he not returned after dropping out due to supposed “Republican dirty tricks”), Bush would have seen a net gain versus Clinton in every state. A simplistic way to predict how each state would have voted in a Perotless 1992 election would be to have Bush net 25% of the Perot vote. However, one would expect Bush to net a higher percentage in conservative states and a lower percentage in liberal states, so the analysis needs to be more nuanced than that.
My analysis of the electoral results from 1992 leads me to conclude that, in a race without Perot, turnout (as a percentage of the 18+ population) would have been around the same as in 1988, Clinton would have won the national popular vote by not more than 1%, and that Clinton would have won at least 264 electoral votes, Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY), 19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton. Thus, Clinton would most likely win by 283-255 in the Electoral College, but had Bush been able to win CT and IA he would have eked out a victory.
BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.
In agreement with you, I am not willing to sacrifice everything because my candidate is out of the race. For me this election is about removing Obama - first and foremost. I think the idea of a third party or a write in is as ill fated as voting for Ross Perot. I am firm that we have to do something about the beltway/media alliance. But, I think we have to accept reality and realize that winning (or losing) this battle is a precursor to the outcome of the war for our republic.
Thanks very much for clarifying; I’m a bit slowww today.
FReegards..
Belize
and Hands off Scott Brown!
The lone “north of Kentucky” vote against Kagan.
My fault for not being clear. I am having the same argument you are and although I agree in principle with EV and JH, I can’t see their way on tactics. Not when our future hangs in the balance as it does now.
I used a number of factors to come up with the map, my gut feeling, looking at which candidate was closer to a majority in a given state, guesstimating what % of Perot voters would go which way and recalling the direction on how some of the Congressional races went. All conjecture, of course. Clearly, Bush was going to underperform 1988, but I believe some states would’ve already left our column (perhaps for the forseeable future with respect to Presidential races) as we see what passes for reliable GOP Presidential states today.
1992 also happens to be the first race I was able to legally cast a vote in, so I remember it fairly well, and it was a bad feeling (my state went for Clinton, if only because he picked the then-supposedly popular Gore). At the time, I didn’t even want to imagine that execrable ticket could even win, but it showed the degree to which Bush, Sr. had completely lost touch with a majority of the electorate.
Where you and I disagree is to what degree Clinton would’ve carried the EC, though you & I appear to agree that Bush would’ve lost (albeit by a closer margin).
Your prediction:
“Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY),”
I moved GA & MT to the Bush win, but the others I couldn’t. CO seemed Dem-leaning (electing Ben Nighthorse Campbell before his switch), NV seemed too marginal not to go Dem, OH was a bellwether (and hence, would’ve gone Dem, as so many of the House races did there); WI moved away from us by then; NH was where Buchanan embarrassed Bush, and I think Clinton would’ve carried it; NJ was too gone, too, and even with a massively unpopular Dem Governor at the time, still wouldn’t have changed that. KY, unfortunately, also would vote similarly to TN, and they (sadly) liked Bubba-Gore there. The Dems romped in the House races there and Wendell Ford won in a landslide.
“19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton.”
To me, it was a no-brainer those would all go to Clinton. IA was already performing poorly for the GOP in the ‘80s, and CT & ME had just simply moved away.
“BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.”
I didn’t throw in a Perotless ‘96, but clearly had they broken for Dole, he would’ve improved his standing. TN & KY would’ve gone for him, which would’ve foretold of Gore’s eventual bust in 2000, which I had a feeling for by then. I think if Dole had been a more aggressive campaigner, he could’ve gotten a narrow win and rid the country of Bubba. I know Dole gets bashed around here, but he was certainly a far better man. Other than he, I don’t know whom we could’ve recruited to run in ‘96 where the outcome would’ve resulted in a blowout (Colin Powell seemed presentable, but ultimately would’ve been a disaster as a liberal). Frightening to think Slick Willard, had he beaten Ted Kennedy, would’ve jumped right into the Presidential contest, and probably would’ve won outright without nearly the scrutiny he has gotten since (unfortunately). That would’ve been even worse than a Powell Presidency (hell, he probably would’ve picked him as a VP).
Here in Illinois, we have mere public skewel teachers, getting pensions that exceed annual salaries at the end of careers by far, some in the $200,000 to $250,000 range. Then there are school superintendents making as much as $300,000 per year but retiring or being fired by multiple school districts and getting extreme pensions from each employer. We have teachers' union officials (employed only by the pension-paying unions until ONE DAY before retirement) who go to work for that ONE DAY as substitute teachers and get full teacher's pensions as well (by actual state statute) as though they had worked as long as teachers as they had on the union payroll and had earned teachers' pensions accordingly. Double dipping and then they whine about not being eligible for Social Security, poor dears! They pay (to the extent that they pay anything at all) only the pension premium for the ONE DAY. These sweetheart deals abound all over Illinois. In the City of Joliet, a recent survey showed average HOUSEHOLD income of $48,000 but that each municipal employee (many of whom marry each other) getting pay and perks worth an average of $125,000 per year. Then they do even better when they stop working (if ever they actually did anything fairly called work) and start collecting those golden pensions and perfect medical coverage and get replaced by the next generation of spoiled brats. How long can this last??? The Demonrats are funded lavishly by the government employee unions. The House Speaker is Michael Madigan of Chicago whose total corruption and 40 year tenure as a state rep, most as Speaker, have given Illinois its nickname: Madiganistan. He is a rarity in avoiding indictment for that long. The Senate Demonrat leader John Cullerton is also from Chicago. The governor of the moment, pending any likely future indictment, is Pat Quinn, an ummmm, confirmed bachelor from (where else? Chicago) who eagerly signed the "gay marriage" bill and makes Dannell Malloy look like a tight-fisted taxpayers' pal while making Forrest Gump look like a nuclear physicist by comparison. Did I mention that Obozo is from Chicago as is Moochelle, that Rahm Emmanuel (aka Tiny Dancer) is Mayor of Chicago and is actually calling for reductions in public spending an indicating that the apocalypse must soon arrive. As Redd Foxx used to say: It won't be long now, mama! I know that former governor George Lyin' Ryan (R-Kankakee) is in federal prison, and former governor Rod "Elvis" Blagojevich (D-Chicago) is in federal prison for 14 years, and that former governors Otto Kerner (D) (3 years in federal hoosegow and had to resign his federal judgeship) and Walkin' Dan Walker (D) (sentenced to 3 hears and served 18 months for bank looting) did stretches in the federal hoosegow. I only wish that Lowell Weicker had been governor of Illinois instead of being prosecutorily ignored as governor of Connecticut. It would have been so nice to see him off to federal prison for the rest of his days. Ahhhh, but how do I really feel about LoLo???
So much for the entertainment portion of our program. Now, down to business. I have one positive suggestion as I am sure you will agree whether you do what I ask or not. Do whatever you can to help Len Suzio in his re-election bid for State Senator in his Meriden-based district. He is a good friend and a very fine man and has already made a mark on the Connecticut State Senate by lowering one of your gas taxes over Dannell's nearly dead body and Martin Looney's and Chris Donovan's. Money, volunteer time, organizing, whatever you can do. Probably meet Tom Scott in the process. Tell Len I suggested that you help. If he tells you my actual name, keep it to yourself.
Second, and more controversial. I quite agree that Romney will never carry Connecticut unless the Demonrat convention nominates Charles Manson instead of Obozo in which case it would be cliff hanger. Why vote for Romney? Vote for a 3rd Party conservative candidate, keeping your conscience intact and let the party know you are fed up with corruption as usual. And, of course, vote for any conservative on the underticket. I am not going to nag you on that one. We all have free will and must use it each in his/her own way.
BTW, in what area of CT do you live?
BTW, nothing I have posted to you, whatever it may sound like, is a criticism of you. I just have a tendency toward sarcasm without it being personal. Judge me accordingly.
I am actually less cynical than I sound and than you may think. I suspect that we are of similar age since I graduated college the year you arrived in CT. Whatever you decide, God bless you and yours!
Ahhh...
Does reading MORMON 'scripture' REALLY have that effect on you??
I guess WHORES are bad for breakfasts.
Who knew?
(But then again; I don't know any Secret Service fellows...)
But HE does leave them when they CONTINUE to do evil...
AMEN!
>>Does reading MORMON ‘scripture’ REALLY have that effect on you??<<
LOLLOLOL!!!!
A glace at someone’s profile page can prevent faux pas.
I’m Catholic, never read a Mormon scripture in my life, unless it was thrown up by some idiot FReeper to belittle a fellow poster.
Have a Blessed Sunday. I’m off to a Classic Parish Downtown where my girls will sing with their Latin Choir.
Thanks for showing your true colors.
At least you are honest enough to admit that you despise Tea Partiers. As does Romney.
You actually....seriesly.....be honest.....you actually think Romney will stand up to the rabid Commie Libs in The RAT Party and their bloodsucking tics in Big Media WITHOUT all by himself??? Without Tea Partiers???
HA!
Suckahhhhhh!
you actually think Romney will stand up to the rabid Commie Libs in The RAT Party and their bloodsucking tics in Big Media all by himself???
The "Fundamentalist" vote, for example, was at one time solidly Democrat. The Black vote was solidly Republican. The Democrats were the party of segregation.
The great dichotomy in political thought, American Style, is the paired-question ,
The election of Obama by a popular majority in 2008 gave us a very powerful example of the majority's answer to that question.
The RINO Equation is to tell people "WE, i.e., that's US, folks, can take better care of you more efficiently than those spendthrift Democrats with their weak, queer-loving family values, and we're more patriotic. The public's answer to that is often,
"Well, we might as get a Real Democrat!"
Enter you guys. Your job is not to convince me of your excellent Conservative bona fides, but to answer my question,
If Romney becomes the nominee, and can get the vote of the stupid to get The Mombasa MF out, more power to him. I'll do my damndest to surround him with Conservatives in Congress. The cure to this Depression, and the Socialist Damage wrought by Team Obama is going to take one hell of a lot more than one election to fix; elections that must be won.
Spare me apocalyptic "Shiite" conservatism. You ain't gonna fix anything by blowing up the system ... or what's worse ... Third Partying Obama back into public housing.
The lesson of Bill Buckley:
"Conservative" Constitutional ideology is indeed the province of the Thinking Person. We persons rarely number enough to win an election, and most often have scant luck attracting the less intelligent to the cause of voting with enlightened self interest .... well, because they are not enlightened, perhaps even incapable of achieving it. YTet they have the franchise.
So what can Conservatives do to influence the government policies of those candidates who do win elections? Bill's answer was to have us fight for Congressional Representation, and perhaps more important, to fight for every local and state post. The other battlefield is the courtroom.
Democracy means (and has always meant) the electorate's choice of the better (or lesser) of two evils ... which hopefully coincides with my (or your) idea ... especially our brand of democracy, which btw, no one said was guaranteed to last forever. And before you chime in with "But we're a Republic!" Just remember that we chose to become one by democratic means.
Shoot, you can't even get the votes of the base of the Republican Party for this socialist pro-choice democrat and you're worried about Obama voters?
Typical Romney Republican thinking.
A) You can't trust Romney Republicans to even know what conservatism is, much less who is a real conservative and who is just another liar.
B) Romney's money and his growing control over the GOP is already being used to load Congress with even more unprincipled Romney Republicans.
WTF is a “right-wing Democrat” ? And why in the hell would I want to help someone whom is the most execrable con-artist the GOP has ever put up ? I already know what he did as Governor, I was watching him closely and he was absolutely horrible ! Voting Third Party is not only the smart thing to do, it’s the only ethical and moral way to go if you’re a Conservative.
You proceed from a false assumption that Conservatives will be able to keep Slick Willard in line. That is hillarious. He has no use for Conservatives, beyond suckering those stupid enough to fall for him for their votes. His mama hated Conservatives. His daddy hated Conservatives. He hates Conservatives. He’s gonna do what he wants when he wants, and if it screws Conservatives, all the better. I don’t want that thing anywhere near the White House. Period.
I believe he asked how you were going to get the votes of tattooed video gaming WalMart shoppers. Not that he was worried about getting their votes.
You are the one running for president, right?
Do you suppose your one million supporters dragging 50-100 people to the polls for you doesn’t involve making an appeal to the great unwashed?
Yes, Obama's Magic Wand is a point in his favor ... /s
#318: Has Romney promised you a job? What other reason could there be for someone posing as a conservative to support the Massachusetts mushball, pro-abort, family institution destroying, socialized medicine enthusing, serial lying, utterly coreless, global warming flunky, tax hiking (on ordinary folks only to shift the burden from his spoiled and privileged Wall Street financiers) etc. Romney is a useless POS who will not only wreck this country but also leave it without even an opposition party to bipartisan Obamunism.
#319: I knew Bill Buckley for years. I suspect you did not. My wife worked directly for him for years. Don't try to lay off your mushy moderation and rejection of principle on Bill.
Bill famously stated on many occasions that he would rather be governed by 100 names chosen randomly from the telephone directory than by 100 members of the Yale or Harvard faculties. So much for pseudo-intellectual elitism which is no more valid than the money-grubbing kind.
Further, Bill's brother James Lane Buckley (not a smooth natural schmoozer or baby-kissing politician), managed to carry none too conservative New York State in a Senate race as Ronaldus Maximus twice did in POTUS races. In 1980, Reagan came verrrrry close to carrying New York City, closer than any GOP candidate by far than any since Calvin Coolidge actually carried New York City in 1924. Coolidge was NOT a noted moderate mushball although he had been governor of Massachusetts (a much earlier and much more conservative Massachusetts).
Reagan was also a LOT more popular in Massachusetts than Romney ever dreamed of being as evidenced by their respective election results.
Somehow, I don't recall Bill Buckley urging Reagan to run for some obscure but safely GOP Congressional seat. That's because Bill never did suggest that. AND Bill did not fear democratic election processes. Waxing philosophical after a loss is not the same as adopting the profile of the cowardly RINO surrender monkeys and leftists in GOP drag who make up the GOP-Elite. They would be flat out Democrats reflecting their belief structures if they could stand rubbing elbows socially with poor folks, Blacks or Hispanics who are all rarities at their polo clubs.
We may resort to courts from time to time out of necessity and as last stands such as with Obozocare (Romneycare?), Second Amendment issues in the face of general elitist stupidity and other leftist shrinking from the plain language of that amendment, or other occasional issues, but we are far better off crushing our enemies at the polls. We can do that with a Reagan but never with a Dole or a Ford or a McCain or the other pantywaist elitist Republican types. We are generally more likely to be subjected judicially to a black-robed wall of elitist tyranny such as is represented by Roe vs. Wade and similarly infamous and quite unconstitutional examples of elitist social revolution masquerading as law and proving that the system of checks and balances has been fatally defective since Marbury vs. Madison, if not earlier.
The danger with Romney is that the conservative base soooooo despises Obozo, and understandably so, that it may be tempted this one time to deliver for such a despicable and even more damaging cretin like Romney, inadvertently doing more damage than even Obozo and his "tsars" are capable of doing. I well understand that our democracy or republic or democratic republic or nation itself is not guaranteed to be perpetual. Do you? AND do you understand how close we are to the end? This nation lost the Democrat Party to the McGovernite Demonrats (communists and their absolute tools) in 1972, apparently permanently. If Romney is elected, there will be now and for the far foreseeable future NO GOP TO DEFEND this nation's institutions and way of life.
Democracy means the electorate's choice (with certain limitations like the distribution of Senate seats at two per state regardless of size, gerrymandering as a way of life, and the Electoral College mechanism. It was not a choice of evils when the GOP was forced to nominate Ronaldus Maximus twice. In those elections, the choice was good vs. evil: Reagan vs. Carter and then Reagan vs. Mondale. In 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2008, it was a choice between evils. For me, the jury is still out on 2000 and 2004 because the jury is still out on Dubya whose opponents were certainly evil. 2012 will be the worst choice of evils yet if we only look at the two major parties.
Your post did not pain you. It reflects your beliefs. It does not pain me because it does not deserve such serious attention as to do so.
I think a right wing Demonrat (post 1972) is one who hallucinates being a Menshevik rather than an outright more obvious Bolshevik.
Romney is much more likely to disdain them as "the great unwashed." They just don't understand the vital importance of derivatives and other smartass sophisticated Wall Street plunderer's financial schemes to gull the suckers and the mere peons who actually have to pay taxes at a higher rate than their majesties.
NMost of us can live without derivatives but occasionally have a real need for auto mechanics, electricians and plumbers who may well also be Walmart Shoppers rather than patrons of Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue.
And a LOT more likely to get their news from Jon Stewart, if they know anything about the world at all.
It’s not just about getting the people who agree with the Constitution to vote for your guy.
If it were only that easy. You need to get votes from the electorate that really exists. And a large number of them voted for Obama last time.
I actually shop at Walmart. I seriously doubt Mr. Romney has ever needed to.
I’ve pushed a broom for a living. Mr. Romney has definitely never needed to.
When it comes to relating to the regular folks, I’ve actually walked in their shoes.
There’s a story I heard years ago, and I can’t track down its provenance, but it rings true:
After the Civil War there was a former general being challenged for a seat in congress by a former private, and the former private was asked how in the world he thought he could beat a former general. His drawled response was, “Well, the way I figure it is that there were a whole lot more of us privates than there were generals.”
I thought you thought Perot cost Bush the win? That’s the prevailing wisdom around here. Some democrats claim George Wallace cost HHH in 1968 which I find hilarious.
Some exit polls showed that Perot voters broke evenly on their second choice, that would mean of course a Clinton win by the same margin. I think Bush would have gotten more Perot votes and gained several states making it a closer election but would he have won? I doubt it, he was not popular. He would have needed too high a proportion of the Perot vote in some states, like Gore’s Tennessee where Clinton won with 47% and Perot got 10%.
If the October surprise of Caspar Weinberger didn’t happen though, I heard polls were close before that.
The conservative Goode doesn’t compare to the ideologically muddled Perot though, he won’t take any votes from Obama (maybe a few dixecrat whackos, statistically insignificant).
Voting for him isn’t the same thing as voting “for Obama” though, mathematically speaking voting for any third party candidate who can’t win (at the end it was clear he would come in third but Perot in 92 had the potential to win, Goode doesn’t) has the same effect as not voting at all. So if I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Romney I’d probably just write in Calvin Coolidge rather than vote for Goode whom I don’t particularly care for.
I want Osama gone, risk of another RINO disaster notwithstanding. I’ll worry about the a-hole who might want to burn down my house after I get rid of the a-hole who is currently not only trying to burn down my house but make sure I can’t get out first.
I doubt Goode will get many votes, the Constitution party barley gets any. He is by far the most well known and qualified candidate that party has ever had but he is still a little known figure nationally. He is most likely to be a factor in his own state which is a a must win for the fingerless glove (Mitt). Bob Barr got less than 1% in Georgia in 2008 though.
His and the Constitution parties support though was more than the Obama margin in Indiana and NC. And Ron Paul’s 2% in Montana (as the nominee of the state’s rouge Constitution party) drove McCain under 50% there. The Nader vote exceeded McCain’s margin in Missouri but Obama still would have been shy of 50%. Nader of course prevented Gore from winning in 2000.
If it’s a very very close race like in 2000 Goode voters might be the difference for Obama but it’s not likely to be THAT close.
Very interesting debate. My position is sans Ross Bush would have lost a close race. Dole as well. I’d rather have had Dole in 88 or have Dole win in 1996 instead of W. Bush in 2000.
Powell makes me sick, I’d wouldn’t take him over Romney or even Jon Huntsman. I doubt a Senator Romney could have beaten Dole in the 96 primaries fresh of running as a “moderate”, ego or no ego I doubt he would have tried, he would have angled for VP maybe, or waited until 2000 after having had time to flip flop to conservative positions.
I may have said Perot kept Bush, Sr. from a second term in the past, but looking at it now and how things broke down and the dynamics I cited, I don’t really see how he could’ve overcome them in a two-man race. I believe only Lee Atwater could’ve rescued Bush, he would’ve eviscerated both Perot & Clinton (the rape stuff would’ve been front and center, and given when that would’ve been aired, Atwater might’ve tried to take out Clinton in the primary season, which would’ve left the Dems with Tsongas (and iffy health, essentially Dukakis II) or Jerry Brown (too nutty, too serious and unable to connect with middle America)).
It’s sad that we don’t have anyone of Atwater’s talent in the GOP today, at least no one we’ve heard of. Can you imagine what Atwater could’ve done with Zero ? We need these fearless, go for the jugular types. The GOP is so sadly whipped and gutless today. The media/Democrats scream “racist”, and the GOP goes and cowers in the corner. Sickening. No wonder we end up with $hit like Slick Willard.
But, as for me, unless the party dumps the piece of merde, I won’t support either evil over Goode.
I’ll bet if Dole had secured the nomination in 1988 (I supported him over Bush, Sr. at the time, btw, even though I wasn’t old enough to vote, but I was already chin-deep into politics), his running mate would’ve been none other than, you guessed it, Jack Kemp. I surmise Dole would’ve won, but he wouldn’t have done the “read my lips” bit that would ultimately kill Bush, Sr.’s chances for a second term. Dole probably would’ve been a marginally better President. Jack Kemp might’ve successfully managed to succeed him in 1996, despite a few nutty positions, his pleasant personality and unquestionable earnestness on bringing Blacks & Hispanics back to the GOP would’ve probably gotten it done. Ultimately, we would’ve dodged all the Bushies (although perhaps it would’ve been Jeb that might’ve ended up a leading Presidential contender for 2004).
Start with removing it from any official recognition. Primarily in Congress, and State legislatures. And most importantly in elections and on ballots. Parties could still conduct primaries if they wish, and only allow the winner to enter the general election.Or a sort of primary like election, which would be open to anyone who got sufficient signatures and which would select the top two candidates for the general. But no party labels on the ballots, and random order on the ballots/machines. Sort of a playoff type system. If two conservatives happened to be the most popular, then they would get on the ballot, thus lessoning the dilution of the vote problem
Start with removing it from any official recognition. Primarily in Congress, and State legislatures. And most importantly in elections and on ballots. Parties could still conduct primaries if they wish, and only allow the winner to enter the general election.Or a sort of primary like election, which would be open to anyone who got sufficient signatures and which would select the top two candidates for the general. But no party labels on the ballots, and random order on the ballots/machines. Sort of a playoff type system. If two conservatives happened to be the most popular, then they would get on the ballot, thus lessoning the dilution of the vote problem
Touche, we’re getting into philosophy here, makes my head hurt. A person’s one vote is highly unlikely to make the difference anywhere. But everyone thinks that and all those votes would make a difference.
Billyboy says he’d walk over broken glass to vote for Glove if he lived in Ohio but probably won’t bother since he lives here. I’ve heard similar from other ratstaters.
If it’s even close here it means Osama is getting his teeth kicked in by a far large margin that expected. I think it will be Bush 2004 #s at best.
Now it may be true that a handful of Ron Paulistinian wannabe philosopher kings (probably prohibited by their colleges from presently owning cars) get their jollies in late night dormitory bullcrap sessions worrying about the violation of the carjackers' "rights" to be prosecuted only by state or county authorities and the just awful "violence" being perpetrated by Congress against the long largely obsolete Tenth Amendment almighty, but most of us don't lose sleep over carjackers' "rights." Nor are most of us calculating with precision how to legalize Heinz 57 varieties of hallucinogenic and narcotic entertainments through the action or inaction of local medicated gummint poohbahs.
Before worrying about folks voting FOR the constitution, first they (including particularly all those Rodeo Drive/Fifth Avenue shoppers) to have the vaguest clue as to the constitution. Their snobbiness and materialism is not an equivalent of knowledge. Plumbers and auto mechanics and army privates vote too. Each is one hell of a lot more likely than the snobbicans to vote the following agenda which just happens to be the agenda of the seldom well-funded but quite numerous populist right (i.e., THE BASE) of the GOP.
Walmart shopper agenda:
1. Memorably kick the patoot of America's enemies and get the hell out without "nation building" which only soothes the overactive "consciences" and "guilt complexes of the GOP-E.
2. If elitist Adam is a lavender queen with an overwhelming desire to penetrate the nether end of Bruce's digestive tract and Bruce has similar and complimentary yearnings and both just have to rub normal folks noses in their despicable misbehavior, then the two of them can move Amsterdam or some other decadent European urban area where they would be much more comfortable. They won't be missed.
3. If little Miss Muffy Pecksniff has flubbed her birth control yet again while pulling a train for the Third Army or, as they say in Muffy's circle, "slumming to the max," and relishing the "diversity" of them all, and is heading off to the STD WOMEN'S RIGHTS "clinic" to dispose of her latest pregnancy (After all, she will be fourteen any day now) and, as her mums and daddy poo have taught her is just NO ONE'S business but her own that she wants to get rid of that inconvenient fun-killing baby. Toooooo BAD for Muffy.
4. Capital punishment of anyone responsible (by public guillotine if possible) for promoters and recipients of TARP and bailouts of those elitist smartass banking institutions and corporations at the expense of ordinary taxpaying folks because those institutions are, altogether now: TOO BIG TO FAIL lest the opportunistic birdbrains running them and their gummint patrons have to suffer Mansion in the Hamptons divestment. Those payoffs to the connected are NOT some sort of human right (even riskily assuming the humanity of the lavishly moneyed and ultra "connected" pigs who are the beneficiaries) whatever Jon Corzine or Goldman Sachs may imagine.
5. Ridding themselves of any dependence whatsoever for news and views upon the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, NBC, ABC, SeeBS, MSLSD, the New York Times (elitists take heed), Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Jimmy Whazzisname, Nightline and their ilk and a dedication to getting news from Rush, Sean, Mark Levin and from what they have found to be dependable internet sites.
6. A firm and scrupulously observed allergy to polo, tiddleywinks, public "readings" of the "poetry" (we use that term advisedly) of various forms of physical and "intellectual" and (ditto) perverts and to tofu posing as food (no government regs but firm voluntary avoidance).
7. A pure burning hatred of the government taking over and ruining any more sectors of the economy and particularly medicine and energy but anything really.
8. Prevention of the proliferation of federal food police and other nanny nags even if they are not allowed to carry guns at "work."
9. Gun control or any other violation of the RTKBA over the private sector.
10. Use in public of any obscenities by public officials: i.e. ANY PHRASE starting with the word "global." There are women and children listening. Penalty: Offending official's tongue pulled out by the roots after suitable preliminary punishments as administered by our Iroquois forefathers as an early response to the invasion by the White Eyes. Lowell Weicker, Vladimir Putin, the Yale and Harvard faculties and supporters of Mitt Romney and of Obozo may be employed for practice until Our People regain their ancestral skills.
11. Restoration of Apache territory and way of life (and of enemy death). Iroquois leftovers may be sent, along with liberals and social revolutionaries to rural Arizona and the Apache strongholds for final disposition.
As much more as one may like upon request.
Let's take our case to the Walmart shoppers any day.
Same here in Maryland. My vote counts for nothing in the Republican primary and it counts for the same nothing in the general election. There is no guess-working in telling who would/will win in those two. Obama will win Maryland easily.
My county used to be solidly Republican until the GWB first term and then went solidly liberal Democrat with the Bush -housing-bubble-boom mass of liberal voters moving here, many are immigrants.(Remember how we were told we would all die if GWB lost, just like now?)
Dont forget it's an electoral system so if your state is liberal then there is no chance for you making any difference.
Ohio and Florida are great states to move to for that.
Or MA or CT or NY or VT or...
(as far as POTUS goes that is)
I agree that a narrow Clinton victory would have been the likeliest result in both 92 and 96 had Perot not been on the ballot, but Bush would have had a chance at victory in 1992 because IA, CT and ME would have been very close and had Bush won the first two he would have gotten 270 EVs. BTW, even without Perot, TN would have voted for Clinton in 92, but would have gone for Dole in 96.
Excellent post! Unfortunately, most of the MittWits have convinced themselves that they MUST vote for a lying, backstabbing, abortionist gun-grabber, because he’s “the lesser of two evils”. Our country falls into further decline when good people continue to sacrifice conservative principles for the illusion that they’re doing something good. It’s like the alcoholic who convinces himself that “I’m only going to do this ONE MORE TIME, and after that everything will be OK.”
And the paid RomneyBots are in full force here on FreeRepublic, trying to frighten conservatives into voting for their boy, because they know he’s a loser.
Because of the 2010 election results, I think that the Republican will easily win Ohio. In 2010, OH elected a new U.S. senator, a Republican. A democrat governor ran for re-election and lost. 4 of Ohio’s 18 U.S. reps. are in their first terms, and all four of them are Republicans.
Because of the 2010 elections, I think that Illinois is a swing state. IL elected a new republican U.S. Senator, to replace a retiring Democrat. IL Republicans got a net gain of four members, in the U.S. House. Republicans gained seats in the state senate and state house.
Anyone who will vote for someone like that is not a conservative, and any self-identifying conservative who is willing to overlook those things is a damned fool.
Does no one ever wonder how a freshman congressman arrives penniless in DC, to leave 6 years later a multi-millionaire or better? (3 terms apparently being the magic swag number and the minimum for the outrageous Congressional Pension scheme...Boehner, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Lugar etc on the Republican side, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Clinton, and about 5000 other Democrats on the other.)
Congress has become a huge insider trading operation, with the members uniquely poised to make enormous sums from every piece of legislation, no matter how insignificant it may appear to us rubes out here in voter-land. Talking just the House here. The Senate spoils are exponentially greater! On the state level, nest-feathering can be even more crude and blatant. Howie Carr's columns ring true in every state. Democracy inevitably becomes Kleptocracy as officeholders use their ability to reward their friends and to stay in perpetual power.
This is not, in case you haven't noticed (which I doubt)... an ideologically driven country. Except for the Far Left Marxists, who are driven by nothing else, Americans are by and large, pragmatists. They are struggling with a basic question:
Your suggestions are very good ones and may become possible through Social Media ... right now, the way people have their thinking done for them is through the MSM and hideously expensive advertising.
The latest primary season is a hopeful example of your direction, though ... the "conservatives" at the very least got on the radar. Next mid-term could be the charm.
However, not one "conservative" from Newt, to Rick, Perry, to Paul ... bothered to come up with a a PROGRAM, A PLAN to implement it, or enough LEADERSHIP to get it sold.
As far as the electorate goes, use the "Reader's Digest" paradigm. It was originally written at the 8th Grade reading level. Pick up an old issue from the 1950's and compare it to the last edition. In 1950's terms, that new edition is nearer the 3rd Grade Reading Level. I have no doubt that we still have our Native Intelligence, but us natives are dumber than ever. Conservatives might want to figure out how to somehow awaken that Native Intelligence and use it to even ....gasp ... win an election.
The Republicans fulfill the same role for the Democrats...that the Washington Generals do for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Anyway, my children, believe what you must about Ross Perot, but our internal numbers showed him taking votes from the Republican side of the equation, NOT from Billie-Boy.
GHWB? Wimp? Who knows? Just an AWFUL STUPID LACKADAISICAL CAMPAIGN ... maybe blame Matalin and Karl Rove. Among the many things I will never forgive Bush AND Rove for is the Rodney King Debacle in LA ... an ounce of toughness there just might have won him CA! If ever the peasants needed "a whiff of grape..." that was it. (Napoleon said that, FYI)
If you went by 1994 Clinton would have lost all 50 states.
And Osama is lot more popular around here than the Greek loser who lost to Kirk.
I wonder when we would have gotten Congress if he had won. 98 if a rat won in 96?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.